Has this even been put to a vote or is it the same group of extremely vocal
RIPE regulars against it and the same group of extremely vocal security types
for it? Rough consensus has its limitations in such cases.
From: anti-abuse-wg
Date: Saturday, 9 May 2020 at 4:22 AM
To: Nick Hilliard
> It's ok for consensus to be that a policy proposal be rejected
> entirely.
but how many times?
randy
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 08/05/2020 12:07:
[Jordi] The job of the RIPE NCC is to implement the policies agreed
by the community. Different folks may consider different pieces of
all of our policies as "inappropriate" or "arbitrary"
which is fine, mostly. Subject to usual
On 08-05-2020 20:17 +0200, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Fri 08/May/2020 13:28:10 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > Hi Alessandro,
> >
> > As I've indicated already several times (and not just in this
> > discussion), all the RIRs have forms or other methods to escalate
> > any issues.
> >
>
On Fri 08/May/2020 13:28:10 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> Hi Alessandro,
>
> As I've indicated already several times (and not just in this discussion),
> all the RIRs have forms or other methods to escalate any issues.
>
> The proposal is only changing "let's have
Dear Jordi,
> There are existing procedures for that in extreme cases.
I think it's now obvious that existing procedures does not work.
--
Sergey
Friday, May 8, 2020, 1:20:45 PM, you wrote:
JPMvaaw> However, I fully understand that the community prefer to do things in
different steps.
Hi Alessandro,
As I've indicated already several times (and not just in this discussion), all
the RIRs have forms or other methods to escalate any issues.
The proposal is only changing "let's have stats".
El 4/5/20 12:29, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alessandro Vesely"
escribió:
Hi,
However, I fully understand that the community prefer to do things in different
steps.
We initially asked for the abuse mailbox.
Then we added a technical validation.
Now I'm asking for a better validations and make sure that the reporting is
feasible. I'm not asking to verify if you handle
El 29/4/20 14:23, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Gert Doering"
escribió:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 01:44:42PM +0200, Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
> >> Coming from the incident response side, I'm tiered of people constantly
> >> telling me, that issues are not their
El 29/4/20 13:18, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Elad Cohen"
escribió:
What is this ?
"However, the community should report any situation to the RIPE NCC, which can
provide (anonymous) periodical statistics to the community, which can take
further decisions about that."
Ripe
El 29/4/20 4:25, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de No No"
escribió:
In relation to the policy, where it says: "must not force the sender to use a
form."
as someone that reports phishing websites, I find the use of forms helpful, as
it ensures the company receives the report, particularly
Hi Nick, all,
I was waiting a few days because I though it will be easier wait for most of
the participants to be able to react and then try to summarize and respond to
all the comments in a single email.
I'm going to try to do it anyway with as fewer emails as I can. This means
trying to
I fully agree with Gert here.
The proposal is not trying to punish anyone, just to improve things, make sure
that errors are discovered and corrected, and for that we need to have stats
and tools.
And this is why it was also removed from this version text that we had in
previous versions
Dear Anti-Abuse WG readers,
Over the course of the past 6 weeks Europol has been releasing on weekly basis
new material relating to COVID-19, all is available in the Europol landing
page:
https://www.europol.europa.eu/staying-safe-during-covid-19-what-you-need-to-know
and it gets published
14 matches
Mail list logo
